Minutes: March 21, 2001
Kailua Bay Advisory Council
Business Meeting Minutes
Windward Community College
Hale Imi`loa #122
March 21, 2001
www.kbac-hi.org
I. CALL TO ORDER
Acting Chair Mark Heckman called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. There was a quorum.
Attendance:
1. Board members present: Scott Derrickson, Jeffrey Harris, Mark Heckman, Benjamin
Kama, Toby Rushforth, Christopher Winn, Donna Wong and Christine Woolaway.
2. Contractors: Maile Bay and Ramsay Taum.
3. CSF: Judy Nakamura
4. Guests: Donald Bremner and Charles Prentiss (Comprehensive Planning Services of
Hawai`i), Shannon Wood (Ko`olau News) and Dave Raney (Reef Check).
II. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Community Input:
Dave Raney – Raney is a volunteer of Reef Check, an organization that does coral reef monitoring at the community level. Their organization has received a grant from the Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program and will select some sites on O`ahu to monitor and survey, then feed the information back to the community. 5% of what they do is monitoring and 95% is education. Ideally, they would like people to adopt a reef and monitor it over time.
Shannon Wood – As editor of Ko`olau News, Woods attends many board meetings and reminded the Council that it is important to choose meeting nights when the vision team and the neighborhood boards do not meet. She suggested the first and last weeks of the month when there are more open evenings. Chair Heckman thanked her for her suggestion.
Christine Woolaway – Woolaway announced that nationwide, $3 million is available from the National Marine Fisheries Service for community and watershed restoration. The deadline for the submission of proposals is May 1, 2001.
Comprehensive Planning Services of Hawai`i – Consultants Donald A. Bremner and Charles A. Prentiss distributed the final draft of the “Final Technical Program Report” to the Council members on March 14th. They have asked the members to make comments and suggestions on the final report and wanted to take the opportunity to provide assurance that recommendations made in the report are feasible and could be undertaken with cost factored in. They are able to provide notes regarding the cost of dredging Enchanted Lake because research has already been done on the Ala Wai Canal dredging. Belt Collins had tracked all of the steps needed to do the dredging and laid out the cost of each step. Comprehensive Planning eliminated the steps that did not need to be done in Enchanted Lake and came up with a total cost. Bremner mentioned several scenarios starting with full commercial dredging and filling in part of the lake with the dredged material; this is easier to do because materials do not have to be moved. With an RFP, we could get a suction dredge and get 5-10% of the solids out of the lake. The silt in the lake is very fine and slippery; therefore the dredge would need to pump a lot of water in order to get the silt out. The dredge could be purchased new or used and the materials dredged could be put on barges to ocean dump, filled in lakeside, or trucked to a landfill. The costs run from a low of $260,000 to a high of $600,000. They are thinking of seven isolated spots along the perimeter of the lake, approximately 700 cubic yards – the biggest spot is up at the exit from the lake to Kaelepulu Stream where there is a large influx of channels. This is probably the area where circulation is being slowed down.
Rushforth asked how long it would take before the lake came back to its original condition. Bremner said that dredging would take 3-5 months and after a few months of settling the lake would be back to normal. Rushforth said the objective is to create circulation and wanted to know how many years it would take before the lake filled again. Bremner replied that it could take 20-25 years; people are aware of storm drain runoffs. The City and County liability comes to the mouth of the storm drain and stops lakeside.
Derrickson mentioned that this is a public trust issue. Is it your assumption that homeowners would not participate in funding? Bremner said that whatever monies they have, the association would be willing to pay it out. Heckman said the association does not have a lot of funds and the association itself must do better with absentee owners. Prentiss pointed out that the association dues must be mandatory.
Bremner closed the discussion by commenting that it had been nice working with KBAC and that they would submit the final copies as soon as possible.
Dr. Alam has to decide on staffing for the next two years and wanted to know if there was interest from KBAC on continuing the research. A straw vote was taken on the interest in the PCR test kits and sampling and a majority of the Council members were very interested.
After much discussion, Rushforth moved, seconded by Wong, to return the funds to the club as the grant had been previously awarded. This was done with the understanding that there will be no further grants that people may apply for because this portion of funding has been phased out and only this club’s grant has been accepted as being grandfathered in. The vote was seven in favor, with one abstention.
Master Plan – Bay is tasked to come up with a Master Plan document that will provide the framework, budget, and timeline for the same. She recommends that the first short-term action is the development of the Master Plan/Watershed Resource Area Strategy (WRAS). In 1998, the federal government implemented a new policy, the Clean Water Action Plan, which provides a process to address water quality issues using a watershed approach which in turn makes federal funding available through the State government for certain designated watersheds. Ko`olaupoko watershed region was identified, in major part because of the work that Eugene Dashiell has done for KBAC, in 1998 it was designated as a watershed potentially eligible for that additional funding. The major advantage of this designation is the potential to receive EPA funding for implementation work that addresses water quality problems. (The State is currently receiving $700,000 per year for this effort; 80% of these funds are available for implementation projects in the State). According to the Dept. of Health Implementation Plan for polluted runoff time schedule, the Ko`olaupoko region’s WRAS should have been completed last year. The WRAS needs public input and this has already been done through community meetings, Dashiell’s reports and John Knox’s reports but their needs to be interaction with government agencies. Bay has proposed that she and three other individuals (a researcher, a scientist, and a facilitator) work for six months (with a $16,000 budget) to complete a WRAS and submit it to the Dept. of Health for their approval. Public input could be accomplished by holding a full one-day community workshop and once input is received, this could be submitted to DOH. Derrickson was concerned about the staffing problems that DOH has been experiencing and with having the WRAS approved in a timely manner. Bay said that Wendy Wiltse offered to assist in the process. Bay said that we could make the WRAS more inclusive than the Master Plan. Bay said that no one in Hawai`i has done an official WRAS. Derrickson cautioned that we have to recognize that even if we do go ahead with the WRAS, EPA and DOH may still want more. Rushforth commented that it would be good PR because the WRAS will provide a leveraging tool for the entire region upon its completion and the public will know what KBAC has done.
Heckman mentioned that the Director would be overseeing the contractors and if there is a concern by any of the members, it should be funneled out. He suggested that the Director meet with the member to remedy the situation, if needed. Heckman mentioned that the Council may not always agree with all of the contractors.
Rushforth further stated that ultimately the cost of the WRAS should include Dashiell’s and Comprehensive Plannings costs for a total outlay of expenses. Rushforth added that the actual costs of Bay’s services should also be included
Rushforth made a motion, seconded by Kama, for Bay to proceed with the development of the Master Plan/WRAS plan. It was unanimously approved.
The second short-term action concerns RFP’s for the KBAC Implementation Program. The three areas are: Education, Restoration, and Site-Specific. Bay had forwarded generic RFP’s for the two areas to the members for their input. She mentioned that the format responds to the community concerns regarding a number of the specific recommendations in the draft Final Technical Report. It also gives the proposer an opportunity to expand, adopt, or limit a proposed recommendation and even consider problems in other areas that may not have been considered by the consultants. Bay suggested a ceiling of $150,000 for Restoration RFP and a possible time frame of three years, noting these are policy calls of KBAC. These RFP proposals must go to the parties for approval before it can be sent out to the newspapers. She is hoping that the ad could go out by July.
Winn wants the RFP to be more specific about what we want done: how the proposals are going to be evaluated and there is a need to decide what we want to accomplish before the RFP goes out. He suggested asking an independent group to evaluate and prioritize the proposals. Derrickson suggested the University of Hawai`i Environmental Center that could be asked to rank and evaluate the proposals. Rushforth mentioned that after reviewing the proposals and seeing the milestones and how the proposer plans to measure the success of the project, the Council could then decide if they need someone. Derrickson suggested looking at the project proposal and asking if it is going to have a positive impact on the community. Bay said that the project must be tightly written. Heckman reiterated that this RFP must go out by July and the Council has to decide how much of the pie we want to divide. Harris suggested asking the proposers to read the Technical Report before doing their proposal. Rushforth stated that the Council needs to put a premium on making decisions. We must take a course of action, approve it, and each step of the way we can get together if there needs to be discussion. We are a private organization and we need to do something, not only plan to do something.
Heckman said that the timelines for the general RFP should be no longer than eighteen months. He further tasked the members to: 1) decide and prioritize site-specific RFPs and e-mail the answer to Bay by Wednesday, March 28th and 2) work at the two generic RFPs and put limits (education and restoration) to be funded. Bay will draft comments that come in and circulate it to the members. Derrickson suggested empowering Bay to collect comments, draft the RFP and get it to the defendants/plaintiffs for their review. Changes will probably have to be made and he is concerned that there is no time-frame as to when the answer needs to come back to KBAC. The Council unanimously decided to proceed with the course of action to complete the RFPs
Ramsay Taum – Volunteer Coordinator’s Report
Status Report: Task A
The VC and the Director met with representatives of WCC and Hawaii Institute for Marine Biology to introduce and discuss the idea of a collaborative water quality assessment effort. Though Dr. Brittain of HPU was unable to attend, follow-up conversations with both the Director and the VC have transpired. Per the Director’s request, proposals from two of the institutions have been submitted which the Director is incorporating into the proposed Master Plan and RFP recommendations for the Council’s consideration.
Status Report: Task B
This evening’s demonstration is intended to familiarize the Council with the GIS technology and its capabilities. Additionally, the Council will get to tour the Hoa’aina Center where the server it invested in is housed. The VC is also preparing the requested report on the status of the GIS data collected by the VWQM Program over the life of KBAC.
However, some preliminary observations and recommendations for the Council’s consideration, include:
1) Revisiting the Watershed Data Base and Information System Strategic Plan that was prepared by Ken Schmidt and implementing the plan to its full extent.
2) Per the observations and recommendations of Dave Krupp, who was instrumental in the original mapping project:
a. Completion of the mapping effort. I suspect some 30-40% of the watershed remains unmapped.
b. Completion of the GIS, including the metadata. It's difficult to say how much time would be involved for this effort at this time. It may take considerable time just to determine what's been completed and what remains to be done. In addition, any additional map data collected as a consequence of completing the mapping effort would have to be incorporated into the GIS along with the appropriate metadata.
c. Setting up a website for downloading the GIS layers by experienced GIS-users who have the appropriate software (ArcView) on their home/workplace computers. This requires providing documentation (metadata) in downloadable format for each layer that informs the user about the nature of the data collected in each layer.
d. Setting up a website that serves out interactive maps through Arc IMS. Royce Jones set up a sample of this for Kea'ahala Stream. But someone would have to decide exactly what kinds of information should be served out for all of the streams. Then someone would have to set up the maps for serving through the internet - not an easy task.
Based on a price quote from Geo Insights International, it would cost $6,045.79* (w/shipping and handling) to purchase the necessary software and upgrades.
Arc View Software $ 149.00
Arc IMS Program $5,625.00
* Does not include installation or data management fees.
3) It is recommended that if the Council chooses to continue and expand use of GIS technology and data for public access via the Internet, that the project be put out to RFP.
Status Report: Task C
The VC and Director met to review and edit existing web site content and format. As of March 9th, the web page has been updated and edited accordingly and a request was issued to CSF to terminate and close the previous SOEST KBAC site.
There were several areas, however, that the VC was unable to edit and or change due to a lack of the proper software or because access was denied.
· Navigation Bar: Darren Nakagawa, original web designer is prepared to make the necessary edits for a fee of $300.00. All other design modifications, new pages, etc. need to be negotiated.
· Bulletin Boards: A public and private bulletin board services found on the “Events /Workshops” page of the KBAC site is actually housed with an external vendor for an unspecified cost. Darren said he would get the information to me before the Council’s meeting. He also thought it would be possible to house the bulletin board service on the Hoa’aina Server.
· The cost of designing a web page to interface with proposed GIS data will be based on what exactly the Council chooses to put on the page. Darren recommended, however, working with an individual more familiar with those programs (i.e. ESRI, Geo Insights International, etc.)
Recommendation: RFP Web services
Status Report: Task D
A preliminary report was produced and distributed to the KBAC for consideration.
Status Report: Task E
Status Report: Task F
Office Inventory completed and submitted to Director and CSF.
Minutes
February 14, 2001 minutes – The minutes were unanimously approved.
III. MEETINGS for the rest of the quarter - Meetings will be held at 6:45 pm at Windward Community College:
April 11, 2001 - Kaneohe Senior Center
May 23, 2001 - Hale Alakai #102
IV. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 pm.